W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: why we need GRDDL (Re: Grddl et al)

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:19:32 +0100
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14612C72-438C-4701-86DB-8F772E125FB3@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On 8 May 2008, at 16:52, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>> as an alternative approach, why don't we make a
>>
>> - call for implementations (in the candidate recommendation phase)  
>> and
>> - gather pointers (including a pointer to a GRDDL document)
>> - and then summarize these in a document (the CR implementation  
>> report).
>>
>> This report might eventually be out of date, but then so be it.
>>
>> What would be wrong with this?
>
> If GRDDL works on day one, then systems consuming OWL (in the RDF/XML
> serialization) with a GRDDL processor in the loop can keep consuming  
> all
> W3C Recommended OWL.  If GRDDL doesn't work on day one (and keep
> working), those systems will be cut off from the new world of OWL  
> using
> the XML Serialization (unless the implement a new parser).  Those  
> folks
> (the people who have adopted OWL so far) will be justifiably unhappy
> about this.  Othor people may also be pressured not to adopt the new  
> XML
> Serialization because their ontologies will be unusable by some
> significant fraction of the OWL world.  (This is in addition to the  
> OWL
> 1 vs OWL 2 fracturing, that's a necessary cost we're planning for.)
>
> Now, it may be that in practice no one consumes OWL via RDF/XML with
> GRDDL in the loop.  It may be that, in practice, folks consuming RDF/ 
> XML
> are faced with the option of either implementing GRDDL or implenting  
> the
> new XML Serialization.  In that case, they might well skip GRDDL.   
> That
> would be okay, I suppose, but GRDDL will (in theory) have many other
> uses as well, so they probably should implement GRDDL soon anyway, for
> loading their data from their XML sources.
>
> Procedurally, as Alan mentioned on yesterday's telecon, the commitment
> to deliver GRDDL has already been made [1].  People can argue what
> exactly the commitment meands (eg Bijan's point that it doesn't
> necessarily mean XSLT or on-line), but I think people reading the
> charter could reasonably understand us to be promising a working on- 
> line
> XSLT-based transform -- that's certainly how I read it.  I think any
> attempt to back out on that deliverable would need to be renegotiated
> with the broader community (technically via a re-chartering, but a  
> broad
> discussion across the Semantic Web community would probably be  
> enough).
> Basically, if we're going to break a promise, we have to make sure no
> one will mind, right?


...how would the above proposal break this promise? It doesn't say  
"don't have a GRDDL/XSLT pointed at", but it says "have a  GRDDL/XSLT  
pointed at, possibly amongst others".


> So, is there some big problem with writting the XSLT?



I didn't say there was one - I only think that having XSLT being  
"sticky out" might make some people think/believe/assume that they  
need it to do anything with OWL.

Cheers, Uli

> I suspect soon it
> will become more cost-effective to implement it than to keep  
> discussing
> it.
>
>       -- Sandro
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html#deliverables
Received on Friday, 9 May 2008 11:18:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 May 2008 11:18:58 GMT